Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

Where did I suggest breaking the law? Complete, serialize and assemble your 80% and efa-10 it before 8/1 and there you go...
The 8/1 date was lawful possession only. The serialization and registration in 131m(b) is called out as a future requirement since those areas simply don't yet exist.
Remember, the registration in 131m(b) specifically calls out 121B which doesn't yet exist.
 
The 8/1 date was lawful possession only. The serialization and registration in 131m(b) is called out as a future requirement since those areas simply don't yet exist.
Remember, the registration in 131m(b) specifically calls out 121B which doesn't yet exist.
I was just referencing efa10 as a possible method of date stamping 80% stuff.
Not that it’s likely going to matter…
 
I was just referencing efa10 as a possible method of date stamping 80% stuff.
Not that it’s likely going to matter…
There is Zero requirement for an 80% to be date stamped in any manner.

The government must prove you or another licensee did not possess it in Mass on 8/1.

There are only a couple of ways they can do so:
1 - The lower in question was not commercially available prior to 8/1
2 - You tell the state that you purchased it after 8/1
3 - you leave a paper trail of discoverable financial records indicating an after 8/1 purchase.
 
There is Zero requirement for an 80% to be date stamped in any manner.

The government must prove you or another licensee did not possess it in Mass on 8/1.

There are only a couple of ways they can do so:
1 - The lower in question was not commercially available prior to 8/1
2 - You tell the state that you purchased it after 8/1
3 - you leave a paper trail of discoverable financial records indicating an after 8/1 purchase.
I thought 8/1 did not apply to 80%.

This is all so confusing.
 
It doesn't since it's a paperweight until Oct 23rd.
But it's pretty hard to prove it wasn't machined prior to 8/1 and therefore legally possessed on 8/1.
But, since it doesn't matter until 10/23, none of the other stuff matters.

I understand your point, but it complicates things and generates confusion.
 
@Broc Tuah

@pastera is correct wrt post 10/22 80s or 76s or 0s.

Here’s the language on untraceable firearms.


Section 121C.
(a) All firearms shall have a serial number in accordance with the requirements of this section. To meet serialization requirements all firearms shall be conspicuously engraved, cast or otherwise permanently embedded with a unique serial number on the frame or receiver; provided, that the serial number shall be placed in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered or removed and shall be engraved, cast or otherwise permanently embedded to a depth of not less than .003 inches and in a print size not less than 1/16 inch; provided further, that the serialization of firearms, frames and receivers made from non-metallic materials shall be accomplished by using a metal plate permanently embedded in the material of the frame or receiver

(b)

No person shall knowingly possess, manufacture or assemble, cause to be manufactured or assembled, purchase, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer or import an untraceable firearm in the commonwealth; provided, however, that lawfully owned firearms imported or acquired by: (i) new residents moving into the commonwealth or acquired by heirs or devisees through distribution of an estate shall be serialized within 60 days of import or acquisition; and (ii) licensed firearms dealers, gunsmiths, distributors or manufacturers shall be serialized within 7 days of import or acquisition.

(c)

No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm without: (i) obtaining a unique serial number from the department of criminal justice information services prior to manufacture or assembly; (ii) serializing the firearm with the obtained serial number during manufacture or assembly; and (iii) registering the firearm with the department of criminal justice information services in accordance with section 121B within 7 days of the firearm’s manufacture or assembly.



And the felonious portion of Chapter 269 Section 11C

Whoever, by themself or with another, knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports, sells or transfers ownership of an untraceable firearm, or knowingly participates in the manufacture, assembly, import, sale or transfer of an untraceable firearm or purchases or receives a firearm with knowledge that it is untraceable, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 12 months and not more than 2½ years. Possession or control of a firearm that is untraceable shall be prima facie evidence that the person having such possession or control is guilty of a violation of this section; but such prima facie evidence may be rebutted by evidence that such person had no knowledge that the firearm was untraceable, or by evidence that they had no guilty knowledge thereof. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section said firearm shall be forwarded, by the authority of the written order of the court, to the colonel of the state police, who shall cause said firearm or to be destroyed.
 
There is Zero requirement for an 80% to be date stamped in any manner.

The government must prove you or another licensee did not possess it in Mass on 8/1.

There are only a couple of ways they can do so:
1 - The lower in question was not commercially available prior to 8/1
2 - You tell the state that you purchased it after 8/1
3 - you leave a paper trail of discoverable financial records indicating an after 8/1 purchase.

So basically CASH, my name is John and I have a long mustachio!
 
I thought 8/1 did not apply to 80%.

This is all so confusing.
The new law makes partially completed receivers the same as receivers which are firearms and fully regulated. They have registration and serialization requirements. Once 10/23 comes, the STATE controls what serial number you put on such items. If you serialize it NOW then you decide what the serial number is. For those planning to comply with the law, I have been recommending they engrave their unserialized "firearms" now. I quote firearms because I am talking about the new MA 10/23 definition which hits 80%s and anything sufficiently manufactured that it is clearly a frame or receiver. so 80%, 79%, 78%...

@EddieCoyle is doing a booming business right now with his laser engraver. You can get your guns done but he will also do rocks and coasters with catchy phrases like "f*** Maura"
 
Wrote the AGs office, this is their reply.

Mr. Fitzgerald:
Thank you for reaching out. Under the updated Section 131M of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, assault-style firearms lawfully possessed by the holder of a LTC prior to August 1, 2024 are not covered by the ban. The relevant language is here:

Section 131M.
 
I responded asking for a clarification on lowers purchased pre-7/20 and built post 7/20. Just waiting on the reply.


Updated:

The AGs office is really unclear on what I meant by 7/20/16. Glad to know our politicians write laws that the AGs office doesn’t even know what it means. They said ask a lawyer…. :rolleyes:

If I had to guess, the 7/20 language is probably going to end up being to dam confusing for the state and they will likely just go by 8/1.
 
Last edited:
Wrote the AGs office, this is their reply.

Mr. Fitzgerald:
Thank you for reaching out. Under the updated Section 131M of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, assault-style firearms lawfully possessed by the holder of a LTC prior to August 1, 2024 are not covered by the ban. The relevant language is here:

Section 131M.
Note that they say "lawfully possessed" without actually defining it
And the definition of "lawfully possessed" is all that is in question.
 
I responded asking for a clarification on lowers purchased pre-7/20 and built post 7/20. Just waiting on the reply.


Updated:

The AGs office is really unclear on what I meant by 7/20/16. Glad to know our politicians write laws that the AGs office doesn’t even know what it means. They said ask a lawyer…. :rolleyes:

If I had to guess, the 7/20 language is probably going to end up being to dam confusing for the state and they will likely just go by 8/1.
No they like confusing
It let's them offer a shitty plea deal that saves you many tens of thousands and the risk of prison.
And if you fight it then they just drop that charge and moot out your case.
 
Note that they say "lawfully possessed" without actually defining it
And the definition of "lawfully possessed" is all that is in question.
Exactly. It’s why I asked for clarification. Of course, I shouldn’t be shocked the state can’t or won’t define it. I mean it would probably screw them over down the road when they wanted to charge someone
 
I responded asking for a clarification on lowers purchased pre-7/20 and built post 7/20. Just waiting on the reply.


Updated:

The AGs office is really unclear on what I meant by 7/20/16. Glad to know our politicians write laws that the AGs office doesn’t even know what it means. They said ask a lawyer…. :rolleyes:

If I had to guess, the 7/20 language is probably going to end up being to dam confusing for the state and they will likely just go by 8/1.
7/20/16 is a red herring. The state 🎶“knows that we know that they know that we know they lyin” 🎤

It was never law. As stated by @CrackPot on the original post, Haha. Stupid.
 
Note that they say "lawfully possessed" without actually defining it
And the definition of "lawfully possessed" is all that is in question.
What does “lawfully possessed” mean in the current law that references pre 94? Hint: it means the same thing now, must be licensed.

I don’t know why people are still hung up on this. Prehealey doesn’t mean anything.
 
Wrote the AGs office, this is their reply.

Mr. Fitzgerald:
Thank you for reaching out. Under the updated Section 131M of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, assault-style firearms lawfully possessed by the holder of a LTC prior to August 1, 2024 are not covered by the ban. The relevant language is here:

Section 131M.

JFC, they can't even read the damn law.
 
7/20/16 is a red herring. The state 🎶“knows that we know that they know that we know they lyin” 🎤

It was never law. As stated by @CrackPot on the original post, Haha. Stupid.
Yes but it will be in the law
And the Supreme Court's own rules says that Court's must interpret all words in a bill to have the meaning the legislature intended.
This raises an issue for the state since if they take the position that anything 7/20/16 forward is banned that will be a taking so they are likely only to use it to induce a plea to a different charge.
 
Back
Top Bottom